skiphunt

True, be inspired by great works of art in painting. How many of them rely on high resolution? 
 
In cinema, high resolution (comparable to 4k) existed since at least six decades. The true masterpieces can be counted with the hands (you don't need fingers). 
 
BTW: I found a good use for LUT utility for FCP X with my pocket. I can apply a Rec709 LUT (it's in the standard version) with the adjustment layer. It's a Motion title, that can be connected, easily prolonged or trimmed and filled with all filters you want to apply to a whole sequence or single clips that you can toggle on or off in their entirety by choosing the layer and hitting "v". Also available from Alex4D. I recommend that you try this template when you experiment with Osiris. It's extremely useful (of course the name derives from Adobe).

Regarding looks.... Matt's signature quote from David Lynch reminds me of an interview I read of his, or maybe heard... can't remember. The quote may actually be from the interview. But, the gist of it was an answer to a question about high definition. David Lynch was saying that he didn't much care for it at the time and felt it was waaaay too much detail. So much detail that the magic and mystery of the dreamlike illusion were being destroyed. And, that he preferred the softer constrasty look of old 16mm films where the viewer had to fill in what was in the shadows with their own imagination. 
 
Or something like that. I think there's definitely something to that.

It's a good question. I just tested by taking a video and a still of the same scene using the neutral profile. Their respective histograms have peaks in the same places, but the video's histogram looks smoother. That makes sense given that the video was 8-bit and the still was 14-bit raw.
 
 
Nothing yet. Only got my hands on it last month, but I'll let you know when I put something up.

It's never worked with video on any Nikon. Pretty sure that's still the case with the D5300.
 
 
 
You can still view a histogram even when using a lens that doesn't give you metering. Just take a test still or video, then in playback mode, press the up arrow to cycle through the information views you have enabled. By default the histogram view isn't enabled, so you have to change the settings under MENU->PLAYBACK MENU->Playback display options. I have it set up like this:
 
☠None (image only) ☑ Highlights ☑ RGB histogram ☠Shooting data ☑ Overview   This will give you histogram, RGB histogram and blinkies views in playback.   The histogram is calculated after the picture style and white balance settings are applied even when shooting a raw still, so keep that in mind.

I recently re-watched them as well & it was good to refresh my memory.
I haven't used any LUTs, but will upgrad my OS & give his plugin a go.
 
I always start by getting the Exposure levels & WB how i want them.
Then if i add a preset/plugin or LUT, in your case, you can go back a tweek stuff to your taste.
Just don't forget to use the scopes etc...
 
Also, you can make your own custom plugins for FCPX in Motion.
 
This guy has some really good free plugins:
http://www.alex4d.com/
http://blog.alex4d.com/fcpx/
 
Really like some of his colour effects plugins.

I'm pretty much a noob to grading as well, but this is my usual CC workflow (all just using native FCPX colour board etc., no LUT's or FCPX presets).
 
Bring up the luma waveform (I find it really important), and go to the exposure board:
Bring the highlights as close to 100 as possible without blowing anything. If there is just one small highlight that has a way bigger spike than all the rest, I sometimes ignore it and let that get blown (bring the others up to 100) Bring the lows down to "0", then I always notch it up quite a bit (between +2 and +10 probably). I then use the midtones to darken the image in the shadows. If I can get the balance right, I find that this tends to give detail in the shadows without sacrificing contrast. It also allows a little colour into the shadows, which seems to give a greater sense (illusion?) of dynamic range. I don't bother with scopes for saturation:
I drag the global slider all the way up then gradually bring it down to where the colours don't look garish. Then I finesse with the high/mid/low sliders. Very often I find desaturating the shadows, bumping the mids a little, and really pushing the highlights (creating a diagonal pattern) results in a natural but punchy look that I like. Less regularly I will push the shadows and highs, and drop the mids (creating a "V" pattern).  I only use the scopes for the colour board if I'm trying to get an accurate skin tone:
I almost always leave the global slider where it is and play around with opposing the highs and lows (complimentary colours). This is the part I find least formulaic - what works is completely dependent on the specific shot. Its fun though. I also watch out for the image breaking up if I'm being very enthusiastic with the sliders. I'll then usually go back to the exposure board and push it around until I like what I see, without worrying too much about the waveform. 
 
The above was my workflow for my D5300 slow-motion test (which I know you've already seen Skip). It's very heavily graded, and I'm actually really pleased with how it came out. Shot with the in-camera 'Neutral' profile with contrast right down:
 

I found out for myself: Grading luma (my first primary CC step as well) is easier for me when I have a grayscale image. Where should the midtones be?
 
Since I know the old Color well and played around with Resolve (guided by vanHurkman's Lynda tut), I know that it's best to follow the processing logic of primarily optimizing all values. In the first step ("Color 1") I want to see every detail. In a later step ("Color x") I decide whether I go for a pseudo HDR look or i.e. crush the blacks for effect.
 
Therefore I first go to the saturation tab and pull all color from the image before switching to the exposure tab. 
 
I also tried LUT utility and Osiris. Like skiphunt, I found a mix of some LUTs with my pre-"graded" images pleasing. Not sure what to think about that. Whatever helps? My goal is to be able to find the right look all by myself. I think color is the most demanding craft, and I'd like to know what it's all about (see controversial discussion >here).

This is a very interesting topic and I agree that it would be nice to see more discussions about this kind of stuff rather than (or in addition to!) the tech side of things on here. 
 
I recently made the switch from a Canon 600D to a Panasonic GH3. I really like the results so far but I haven't had any chance to play around with different camera settings, grading etc. 
 
I often shoot out in the nature as I'm focussing on Mountainbiking right now. So I often shoot in dark forests yet the sky is very bright, so dynamic range is a big issue and the sky is almost always blown out if I want to keep details on the ground/trail. 
 
So here's my workflow (FCPX) so far... any tips to improve the workflow would be greatly appreciated!
 
- I try to avoid blown out skies and too contrasty scenes altogether and I tend to expose to the right
- I also use a very flat picture style, although I don't dial sharpness down quite as much as I used to
- after importing the files, I make minor exposure adjustments to sort of balance the footage
- then I add the Teal and Orange-filter that is integrated in FCPX 
- the filter is usually too strong for my taste, so I dial down the intensity a bit
- then I take another look at exposure, saturation and colour and make some more minor adjustments until I get a pleasing result
- I usually tend to bring up the exposure in the highlights a bit (this boosts the brightness of the entire image) and also boost the saturation in the midtones a bit (so that the rider pops out a bit more)
- last step is to add a little bit of sharpness (usually around +3 in FCPX)
 
Recently I also tried to emulate the Teal and Orange-filter by pushing the shadows into cyan and highlights into yellow/orange. This resulted in a slightly nicer image because this doesn't crush the midtones as much as the built-in filter. 
 
Now my problem is that when adding the filter, the blacks and dark colours get crushed so there's not a lot of detail left in these areas (which in my case tend to be the trail and the trees). When I bring up the dark areas by adjusting the exposure, there's a ton of noise in these areas. 
 
Also, I'm not too happy with the sharpening tool of FCPX. Would it be better to dial up the sharpness in camera a tiny bit (from -5 to -2 for example) as long as the footage isn't moiré-plagued? 
 
I don't have experience with LUTs at all, never used them before. How does the workflow change when using LUTs? As far as I understand, the camera needs to have a specific profile to properly work with LUTs (cinegamma for example, which is only found in more expensive cameras) but having a flat picture profile in a cheaper camera (GH3, T3i etc) will work the same? Do I apply the LUT after doing the colour adjustments INSTEAD of using a colour correction filter such as Teal and Orange? Or do I apply the LUT IN ADDITION to the colour correction filter? 
 
Looking forward to hearing your feedback... thanks a ton in advance!
-Moritz

Depends on the camera. Make your own tests. There is a free Motion template (to be used as an effect in FCP X) that can be used subtly (not like in this demo), and it seems to sometimes do better than just "sharpen":

The best sharpening tool is the one in Neat Video & it also de-noises the best as well.
In Motion there is an Un-Sharpen tool (& loads of other options/filters that aren't in FCPX), which you can make into a plugin or go to Alex4D's site & use his free one.
Also, remember that applying contrast to a scene will also sharpen up your footage, especially Local Contrast (but i don't think FCPX has that tool, maybe its in Motion).
 
There's lots of debate about how much sharpness to use in-camera & i found it all depended on the type of shot:
Close-ups - no sharpening
Medium Shots - +1/2 from off
Wide Shots - +2/3 from off
(This was Canon & not GH)
Testing is the sure fire way to see what you like or what works best.
 
There was a video where someone showed the different options & i think they concluded that completely off was not the way to go (holding breath & waiting for the expert detractors to jump down my throat).

One other thing I wish was a bit different about this forum is I wish people would post examples from their own work/tests more. I think this would be particularly helpful/useful on this thread.
 
I also think it might lower the likelihood of threads descending into polarised battles over who is right and wrong about this or that so much. It takes a bit of humility to open your work up to criticism/analysis and hopefully people would be more constructive in their criticism, and acknowledge that taste comes into the equation a bit more often.
 
Just a thought.

Found these free tutorials helpful, they really gave me a good idea/starting point for how i should be going about things in FCPX:
 
http://www.colorgradingcentral.com/final-cut-pro-x-color-grading-table-of-contents
 
And yes, this forum is all about the tech.
If CC does come up (see the BM4K thread attacking James Miller's footage), it normally descends into juvenile muscle flexing rubbish.
Its a shame that people don't share more tips for this sort of thing.
 
If you really want to learn more about grading, CC etc...the 2nd edition of this book is excellent & a must buy for anyone wanting to learn or improve - its worth every penny:
 
http://vanhurkman.com/wordpress/?attachment_id=2855#main
 
or this one by the same author:
 
http://vanhurkman.com/wordpress/?attachment_id=2856#main

To answer one of your questions, the point of using a film emulation lut is due to the fact that color reproduction on film is different than digital. One is a chemical process and the other is electrical after all. As a result shoot a scene with film while have different color tones than digital, While you could grade footage your self to get a more film like color response the emulation luts can do that for you. They are just a starting point however. A proper grade should always follow.
 
Color correction and luts go hand and hand as little or as much of both to get the look your after. As for when you use a lut, generally it is the last step or node since they can crush your black or clip your highlights.

Thanks Daniel! I'm really loving the image from this camera. I'm using it way more than my G6. For me I don't care which camera is best on paper, or which has been designed best for video use. At the end of the day it's about whether you like the images you can get from it, and I REALLY like the images I'm getting from the D5300. 
 
I'm looking forward to seeing footage from the GH4 and can imagine buying one in the future. However, it can have 10X more detail, colour depth and dynamic range than the D5300 - if I don't like the image as much, I won't buy one. Art doesn't rely on statistics. David Lynch says it better (below)!

I hope it didn't come across that I was implying Andrew is some sort of shill. Wasn't saying that at all. The point was, if I may clarify, is that I value the findings of other users who don't review all the time. Those who're looking for a camera to do the same things I want it to do and have similar criteria as me. The conversations like the ones I had back and forth with Matt before we each decided that based on our experience with the D5200, the D5300 would meet our needs. 
 
I'll add that I first got the D5200 based on what Andrew wrote about it, and the work that Brandon Li was doing with it. So, I do appreciate his opinion and weigh that with what appears to be a little different ultimate criteria, ie. final work flow, budget, and computing power/storage needed. 
 
Before I left for Mexico, I did a few tests and started playing with grading. Not completely happy with my skill level with grading, so I figured it was best to just show the flat stuff mostly untouched. The problem with shooting those extremely flat profiles... is that if you're going back and forth from video to stills, it becomes a real pain. I'll have to see if there's a way to quickly go from completely different custom setups without having to go into menus. My little Nikon compact has a plethora of customizable settings I can quickly change to with one flip of a knob. It'd be nice if I could find a way to do that with the D5300.
 
It doesn't bother me in the slightest that Andrew doesn't like the D5300 so much. What's odd is that it seems to matter to others so much. People have different needs and what they're willing to put up with to get the image they're happy with. Andrew does a good job of stating why he likes this or that and why he doesn't like something, though... it didn't really seem like a "review" that he did of the D5300. More of an opinion piece to call out just how much he doesn't care for it. So be it. I personally don't need anyone to validate my purchase. If it had not lived up to my expectations, I would have simply returned it. So far, it has surpassed my expectations and I'm looking forward to getting better with the camera and grading. So far, considering I haven't even tried grading anything from Mexico yet, and shot for a month handheld under a variety of often difficult conditions... my purchase has been self-validated to my liking. :)

Thanks Andrew. I didn't have any audio to drop on it, and since I'm using YouTube... couldn't just add some good music. I recorded some ambient plaza music, but that didn't work out so well. So, that narrative is all I had handy and wanted to put something up to show what the nearly untouched stuff looked like. 
 
I really didn't like using one camera for video and stills. It might just be that I've been a still photographer too long and it's too difficult to switch back and forth. I have shot plenty of motion in the past, but for some reason... it's difficult to jump back and forth. 
 
At the same time, I didn't want to carry two different kits while backpacking. But, at home... I'll likely migrate to having two camera kits, one for stills and one for motion. Or, just practice more. ;) I'm only just now getting back into this stuff, so it's likely just learning curve pains. 
 
I do think that based on my tests in some very low light shooting situations, some very difficult spaces (i.e. underground cenotes with almost no light or having to pass through a vertical wet/muddy tunnel to get down into one, with high humidity, etc. that the camera performed well. Mostly just grabbed a bunch of shots at random and put them in some ordered grouping, but if you knew the very low amount of light there was in many of those clips... it'd be more impressive. 
 
Once I get my head around grading stuff, will edit something down with a proper soundtrack, etc. 

Slow motion test shot with D5300 this weekend.

Pretty much knew the D5300 wasn't Andrew's cup of tea before buying my own. So, none of his review is surprising. Some of it I agree with. 
 
Just got back from using the D5300 for a month in Mexico. Awesome stills camera for the money. Excellent video results as well. Handling was very awkward, especially going from stills shooting, to video, then back to stills. Had to just settle for a middle of the road Standard setting, but managed to find a few work arounds for shooting on the go. 
 
For the money, being able to use my Nikon lenses, the articulating screen, the great low light performance, excellent stills, and a very light weight... together made for the camera I was looking for. 
 
I also chose this camera because I didn't want a cumbersome work flow and have to accommodate huge file storage, especially on the road. And, I know the tech is improving leaps and bounds each quarter it seems, so I didn't want to invest in anything that would likely be eclipsed quickly by the next so-called "all the rage" 4k, raw, over-hyped-bla-bla-bla gear that also needs several thousands worth of accessories to make them usable. 
 
If that GH4 works out to be all the rage and might have at least a good 2 years of valuable shelf life, then  I'll grab one and my Nikon D5300 will still be useful as an excellent backup stills camera with an excellent low-light sensor for video in a pinch. 
 
Despite the awkward handling of the D5300, all things considered, especially if a no-fuss workflow, clean low light images, low file storage needs, light weight, and greats stills performance is important to you (as it is me) then the D5300 is a great alternative for an affordable $799. 
 
I'll just add that I bashed this camera around pretty good (unintentionally) and even got it very wet on accident on a few occasions, but it never failed in any way. It's a solid performer for the money from my personal experience. And, I'm quite happy with the quality of the images. Once I get caught up from being gone a month, will splice a few clips together and share.

As someone that just did a shoot in NZ barely a year ago on 60i HD and a 5 year old Canon camcorder, I'd just like to say I'm crazy jealous that someone got to run around the country using this gear.  What I would have given to have shot my assignment on this cam.
 
Man, I know a lot of y'all never seem satisfied with limitations, but just take a breather and realize that you're looking at a camera that shoots 4K for less than 2K.
 
I don't know, seems impressive to me.

While discussing about gear and a storyline -- this comes into mind.
 
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/03/oscar-searching-sugar-man-shot-iphone/
 
Some scenes shot on an iPhone, and won an Oscar for best documentary.  Proves that you can create a compelling story and convince an audience, regardless of what tools you use.
 
Just thought I share.

For my need, I would never go Canon any-more. I cannont bear the moire/aliasing and the low rez muddy look. For the rest it is more like best image quality in the D5300 and best convenience into the the Panasonic line. One good advice is the lens choice as it will last much longer than the camera body and Nikon is a good one because it will fit almost anything.
 
One advantage that people rarely talk about the Nikon D5300 is the uncompressed hdmi output. For $ 200/300 you can add a nice monitor that will be much better for exposure/focusing than the tiny inbuilt screen in other dslr. For $ 700 you can have a Ninja 2 with the focus/exposure aids and prores 442 recording.

I wouldn't want to put anyone off the D5300. I'm completely happy with mine based on the criteria I listed above. It's just without histogram, or focus peaking, touch screen, etc. some of those other options seem like friendlier video choices. 

As far as inspiration...it just comes, but you have to be looking for it. If you're constantly looking for a good story to tell, then you'll start to see images, and if you focus on them and look for ways to bridge them together, a story begins to form.
 
Probably not very helpful, but it's hard to say exactly where ideas or inspiration comes from. But once you get into the habit of dreaming cinematically, I find that more ideas flow from there.

Ah, understood.  Busting out some Barry Lyndon level shooting, eh?

I think a few wires may have got crossed here. Serves me right for getting my back up I suppose  :wacko: 
I wasn't suggesting non-tech stuff shouldn't be discussed all over this forum, I just meant if you specifically want to divert a topic to say forget about the tech and focus on the other stuff, there is a place to do that. I should perhaps have put it more diplomatically.I certainly don't regard the non technical stuff as silly or daft, that's the bit I like best! What I think is daft is when someone asks a technical question and they get a response saying focus on the story. It happens too often and it's not helpful - it's patronising. I'll shut up now though, before I dig myself a deeper hole …